Law Professor: The Constitution Is The Real Reason We Can't Get Anything Done In Washingtonhttp://www.businessinsider.com/professor-wants-to-abandon-constitution-2012-12/comments
en-usWed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 -0500Fri, 09 Dec 2016 11:45:36 -0500Erin Fuchshttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e8036169bedd1d1a000022http://www.diamonddon.com/diamond_don_2011#comment-7771Sat, 05 Jan 2013 05:41:37 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e8036169bedd1d1a000022
Good grief. I heard such nonsense when a freshmen at my local technical college mentioned ?°thus it was?± and it was that way for him, and thus it stayed, on via adulthood, stagnating the mind and leading to ultimate despair.
<a href="http://www.diamonddon.com/diamond_don_2011#comment-7771" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" >http://www.diamonddon.com/diamond_don_2011#comment-7771</a> <a href="http://www.diamonddon.com/diamond_don_2011#comment-7771" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" >http://www.diamonddon.com/diamond_don_2011#comment-7771</a>http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e3876decad04b654000020fun fun funTue, 01 Jan 2013 20:03:41 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e3876decad04b654000020
"Seidman probably isn't in very good company now, though. Judges and regular citizens are too attached to many of the rights the Constitution gives us like freedom of speech and even the right to bear arms."
The constitution doesn't give rights - it can at most express or affirm them. A different constitution might equally affirm the right to free speech and to 'bear arms" but possibly through something in about arms not referring to nuclear weapons, tanks etc. This is the best recent example - some debating whether owning an assault rifle was constitutional rather than whether it was a good idea. People having to make claims like that 'arms' referred to muskets and harsh language, to get around the amendment.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e383eb69bedd171a000003view your utopiaTue, 01 Jan 2013 19:48:43 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e383eb69bedd171a000003
I don't think you can defend the current state of affairs in USA. Very lacking in social mobility and with very entrenched interests able to purchase speech. Intense stratification and very profound differences in terms of opportunities on peoples of different classes. A political class with (often) extreme personal wealth. It's difficult to overstate the disparity.
To attend a top tier university (part of a short path to power), you either have to be extremely hardworking, lucky and intelligent or just wealthy. As long as power is largely unattainably by the average citizen, it fails to be a real democracy.
The options are that the constitution is being ignored or that it has failed to prevent the current situation. In any event, something seems to be broken. It's difficult to be a functioning democracy without equality.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e37f6f6bb3f7d534000017gfndmhTue, 01 Jan 2013 19:29:35 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e37f6f6bb3f7d534000017
I concur that party alignment is unrealistic - however, it does streamline things a bit. It divides issues into two main voices rather than a crowd of overlapping and opposing viewpoints. It's the reason why committees never get anything done.
Congress is probably too large to be able to function without the parties imposing some organisation.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e37d066bb3f7963000001dgsdgsdhfgh (devil's advocate)Tue, 01 Jan 2013 19:19:18 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e37d066bb3f7963000001d
1) Look at your window - is it working?
2) It is true that it does offer protections against radical seesawing of public opinion, but a revised document could equally offer this (questionably in the current political climate). A revised constitution doesn't need to abandon the principles contained in the original, but could clarify things where interpretation has allowed questionable practices (for instance, suspension of rights when politically convenient).
3) Arguably the greatest truth of the constitution is that the entrenched political classes and wealthy are able to continue to be entrenched. The most worrying trend is that even in the modern age, we have political dynasties (clintons, bushes, kennedies). That very lack of change you advocate would certainly appeal to a great many politicians who are doing very well for themselves while being ineffectual and are able to transfer power to the next generation.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e376d069beddf673000004tqwerwtTue, 01 Jan 2013 18:52:48 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e376d069beddf673000004
Take a look at your utopia.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e375ef6bb3f7942300000cfurther heresyTue, 01 Jan 2013 18:49:03 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e375ef6bb3f7942300000c
the same protections could be written into a new one, but with options to correct certain ambiguities etc. He has a valid point in that the constitution should only be adhered to as long as it represents the best possible solution, rather than a deference to fallible men that we have elevated in status to demigods. His point is ultimately made by the extent to which people regard it as heresy even to question whether a more ideal constitution is possible.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e37417eab8ea2d64000013heresyTue, 01 Jan 2013 18:41:11 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e37417eab8ea2d64000013
1) The constitution is a piece of paper. If it prevents you from adopting an optimal solution, then something is clearly wrong. The number of occasions where the discussion is a matter of intent of the constitution as opposed to simply being an exercise in achieving the best outcome is saddening.
2) It is likely impossible to change as it would as the change would be offloaded to a group of people who have it to thank for their power. It would dwarf the usual gridlock and would bring out the niche interest groups in force. You think Wallstreet is a problem now, imagine if they had the ability to get an input into a rewritten constitution.
3) a rewrite would almost certainly limit the powers of the president. Most other democratic nations have positions where the leader rules by obtaining consent rather than having powers in line with being Caesar.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1f14f6bb3f72253000002GodsGuyMon, 31 Dec 2012 15:10:55 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1f14f6bb3f72253000002
Historically you are correct...Slavery will forever remain a stain of the US Constitution. Of course the Amendment process solves this dilema and was approved by "We the People" as well depicted in the recent Lincoln movie. Let's not disregard the great intelect of our consistution due to the great thinkers of the day being white. Their accomplishment in the document and country founding has proven the test of over 235 years. When viewed through this intelect, you can see a different view of the Egyptian dilema on a mainly Muslim leadership forcing a biased constitution onto their people. Ours does work...and it is not due to efficiency of our government...but due to the right premise...We the People run the US government...http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1efd1eab8ea5a2e000009DMGMon, 31 Dec 2012 15:04:33 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1efd1eab8ea5a2e000009
Principles don't change "dude".http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1d97669bedd1e2b000004thedaltonMon, 31 Dec 2012 13:29:10 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1d97669bedd1e2b000004
ahhh, and yet another small-minded fool rears his ugly head.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1d8d3ecad04a336000008thedaltonMon, 31 Dec 2012 13:26:27 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1d8d3ecad04a336000008
you need to get some sleep, dude.
it's not the "principles" he's discussing, it's that things have changed over the past 200 years.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1d874ecad04713400003bthedaltonMon, 31 Dec 2012 13:24:52 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1d874ecad04713400003b
"we the people" being white.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1d8256bb3f7752300000athedaltonMon, 31 Dec 2012 13:23:33 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1d8256bb3f7752300000a
which "god?"http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1d7d5ecad04a936000003thedaltonMon, 31 Dec 2012 13:22:13 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1d7d5ecad04a936000003
it is rather ridiculous to be adhering so closely to a document that was written 200 years ago. try to imagine adhering to a business or government document written even 50 or 75 years ago with such devotion.
the founding fathers were certainly brilliant (at least some of them), but they were also set in their way relating to everything from slavery to religion...which would definitely effect their viewpoints, legal and political.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1d19a6bb3f71b1400001bPWObserverMon, 31 Dec 2012 12:55:38 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1d19a6bb3f71b1400001b
A law professor and Alumni of the American Enterprise Institute with ties to ALEC thinks we should listen to his advice on the constitution, seriously.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1d09eecad049129000002'Benjamin Martin'Mon, 31 Dec 2012 12:51:26 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1d09eecad049129000002
Correct it re-affirms our rights given to us by Godhttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1d06c69bedd2f1300000c'Benjamin Martin'Mon, 31 Dec 2012 12:50:36 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1d06c69bedd2f1300000c
George Bernard Shaw was a HARDCORE fabian socialist/ progressive, it was from him the Nazi's got the idea to use a "humane gas" for mass executions while playing calming music!!!
That nice looking little old man was incredibly evil! Don't take my word for it watch some of the old footage of him speaking. He wanted people to justify their existence otherwise they should be executed via the methods stated above!http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1ced169bedde80f00001eJames CarvilleMon, 31 Dec 2012 12:43:45 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1ced169bedde80f00001e
This is the opening salvo from the Progressive's. They are floating a baloon to get this dialogue started.
The pressure to "radically transorm United States of America" will become more intense over the next four years. The Progressives wont stop until we no longer have a Constitution.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1c8616bb3f78b0400001aAlanMon, 31 Dec 2012 12:16:17 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1c8616bb3f78b0400001a
The Constitution does NOT give you your rights.
Not a single one.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1c6f4eab8ea1652000012Aren't they allMon, 31 Dec 2012 12:10:12 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1c6f4eab8ea1652000012
Don't Lawyers have to swear to uphold the constitution?, like Presidents
What was it that Herr Bush said, . “It's just a goddamned piece of paper!”
....and people wonder why America is now so fucked up!http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1c656eab8ea2755000004David ConleyMon, 31 Dec 2012 12:07:34 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1c656eab8ea2755000004
Not sure I agree with Seidman's position, but it is interesting to hear a fresh and different viewpoint about the Constitution...and, maybe...just maybe...he's right.
What congress needs to do (but won't): create a Clean Government Act.
1. Limit political contributions from any source (individuals, PACS, businesses unions, lobbyists, etc.) to $1,000.
2. Prohibit contributions from outside the state for local and state offices. It was money from outside the state that financed Al Franken's senate win.
3. Prohibit lobbyist organizations from contributing to any organization in which any member of congress has any affiliation. Lobbyists now contribute to charities that pay congressmen to sit on their boards, a back door form of bribery.
4. Prohibit anyone who has organized or participated in fund raising activity from holding any government appointed position. Obama has appointed 24 fund raisers as foreign ambassadors.
5. Prohibit payment of travel, speaking fees, or any other expense for congressmen or their families by any organization.
6. Prohibit and define as bribery any agreement between members of congress that influences how any member votes on any issue. Exchanging a vote for anything of value, whether s special committee assignment or for a vote on another issue is, in fact, bribery. The Reid/Nelson affair is an example.
7. Limit senators to 2 terms and house members to 4 terms. With less time in office, they have less time to evolve the situations that lead to ethics issues.
8. Prohibit acceptance of foreign contributions to elected officials after they leave office. Bill Clinton reaped millions from foreign sources after he left office…. delayed bribe payments?
9. Require disclosure of all sources of income while in office. How is it that people of modest means when elected seem to be multi-millionaires when the leave office?
10. Pass legislation to limit or eliminate earmarks in spending bills. This is the most used payback method for the system of legalized bribes that exists in congress.
11. Disallow close relatives of House and Senate from serving as lobbyists (as do relatives of almost half the senate).
12. Authorize the line item veto.
13. Make all congressional members abide by all laws and benefits that are enacted for other federal employees and the general populace.
14. Salaries of members of Congress shall be voted on by the public, including any raises to such, which should be done in general election years, no special elections.
15. Congress shall be limited as to the amount of aides and office staff to no more than 5 or 6 per office. That should be enough to deal with constituents, handle appearance or public requests or send out notices.
16. Any law that comes before Congress shall be read by each member of Congress directly, no more having aides read it. They should have to sign a form stating that they read and understood each proposal before voting for it and should be able to explain it to their constituents in plain language.
17. All votes should be posted on a website when they are up for re-election. No flip-flopping on what they did or did not support in the past, as the populace generally forgets. Have it out in the open.
18. No amendments shall be allowed to any bill, ever! The bill should be voted up or down on it's merits...and if amendments need to be made, a new bill should be crafted and brought forward for a vote.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1c476ecad04820f000017GodsGuyMon, 31 Dec 2012 11:59:34 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1c476ecad04820f000017
The brilliance of the constitution is that it defends "We the People." We do not agree often so it SHOULD be difficult to govern us. Government at it's best is built to serve us...at its worst, to enslave us. Focus on threats to our liberty, not efficiency of government.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1c1c969bedd406f000015DMGMon, 31 Dec 2012 11:48:09 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1c1c969bedd406f000015
What a wonderful idea. Society becomes to weak and self-centered to live up to the principles that were the REASON for the founding of this country so the solution is to just get rid of the principles! I don't care if this guy was trying to be "provocative" his opinion represents the exactly wrong attitude. How did we become a nation unable to endure even temporary hardship and sacrifice? Why is any kind of delayed gratification evil? Why must we attempt to change the rules when things become the tiniest bit difficult? It has been said that 'the Constitution isn't a suicide pact'. I say that if the Constitution leads us, as a nation, to commit suicide we need to reexamine what the hell we are doing because it is us that have gone severely off course, not the principles enshrined in this document. You either believe in these principles (which are the thing that is supposed to DEFINE us AS Americans) or you don't. It can be argued that Obama isn't an 'American'...not because of where he was born but rather because he signed the NDAA. By this act alone he has betrayed the fundamental requirement to be an 'American'. It reminds me of supposedly religious people who want to change the Bible because 'strict adherence to it makes them wonder why a dead white god, who thought it was fine to send people to hell, should get to decide our fate'. Many people question whether God exists...I question whether principles do.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1c006ecad048a08000032Ryan JamesMon, 31 Dec 2012 11:40:38 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1c006ecad048a08000032
I'm happy it is hard to change to Constitution. Wasn't the purpose to limit government and let people live free?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1bef4eab8eadd4400000dBudMon, 31 Dec 2012 11:36:04 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1bef4eab8eadd4400000d
I believe that the idea here is that we should allow the cogniscenti (who are obviously more capable and visionary that the rest of the "great unwashed") to guide our country as they see fit, while the rest of us cling to our guns and religion. There are very clear provisions for modifying the constitution on a democratic basis. If the majority of the country desires a consitutional change...the popular mandate should be sufficient to push through any proposed changes...right? Why does the left hate our democracy so much?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1bdbfeab8ea394000000fjsreillyMon, 31 Dec 2012 11:30:55 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1bdbfeab8ea394000000f
I thought that the line was "First, get rid of all the lawyers." not "First, get rid of all the documents." Maybe I misread it :)http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1b9e46bb3f75e6b000010New American DreamMon, 31 Dec 2012 11:14:28 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1b9e46bb3f75e6b000010
+5000 thumbs up.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1b9bb69beddcb5a00000dJohnny OxygenMon, 31 Dec 2012 11:13:47 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1b9bb69beddcb5a00000d
Hey Louis.
Go f*ck yourself you academic piece of sh*t.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1b9a3ecad04a97e000004Harold GMon, 31 Dec 2012 11:13:23 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1b9a3ecad04a97e000004
Proof that we have too many lawyers and law schools in this nation.
Any government for a country this large is going to be complex and governed by a complex set of rules. What does he propose?
The statement "wonder why dead white men who thought it was fine to own slaves should get to decide the fate of our Congressional negotiations" really sounds like an ad hominem style attack against the founders by Mr. Law Professor.
What Mr. Law Professor, who really should know better because he's suppose to have a really good understanding of American history, fails to realize is the constitution was written that way for a reason. It was designed to prevent radical change. It was designed to prevent some group of nut cases from sweeping into power and changing everything in one fell swoop. It was designed to keep the government in check.
It was designed not to be a parliamentarian style government.
Maybe Mr. Law Professor would prefer the more enlightened parliamentarian style. Of course, he realizes that if that were the case, the Prime Minister would be a Republican as they are the party that holds the lower house?
Maybe we can suspend it and replace it with a benevolent dictator like Chavez or Castro or Kim Jung whatever or maybe even Hitler.
Yes, that was a reductio ad Hitlerum. Why wait for some commentator to bring up Hitler... just go straight to the final argument.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1b906ecad04f477000035John RyanMon, 31 Dec 2012 11:10:46 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1b906ecad04f477000035
To lose the Constitution would let any radical man,woman,or group shape the U.S. into anything good or bad with no limits. It would be insane. If you stand for nothing you fall for everything.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1b7806bb3f7b962000014djeremiasMon, 31 Dec 2012 11:04:16 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1b7806bb3f7b962000014
The problem is too many States (and counties). Time to redraw the lines. I'm thinking about 15 stars on Old Glory would look excellent.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1b4ff69bedd4f4f000006bendermanMon, 31 Dec 2012 10:53:35 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1b4ff69bedd4f4f000006
Getting rid of the parties is a good step towards sanity. They should make the congressional elections nonpartisan. If no one gets 50% of the vote have a run off between the top 2. They needed parties because campaigning to a large number of people was a difficult task. Now with technology you do not need a party system for congregational campaigns.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1b4f96bb3f75a5e000016Eric WeiderMon, 31 Dec 2012 10:53:29 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1b4f96bb3f75a5e000016
This guy is an idiot who completely fails to understand the vital protections provided by our Constitution. And George Bernard Shaw was a major racist who believed in selective breeding and Eugenics. The thinking of these two putz's is what leads to men like Hitler.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1b4c4eab8eab628000031Oh, myMon, 31 Dec 2012 10:52:36 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1b4c4eab8eab628000031
"This type of strict adherence to the Constitution makes Seidman wonder why dead white men..."
Is it time for our two minute hate?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1b4a8eab8ea1b30000002DELMARMon, 31 Dec 2012 10:52:08 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1b4a8eab8ea1b30000002
It seems Seidman is extremely poor at using historical events as a guide to better the future.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1b41cecad04ac73000009OldBlindDogMon, 31 Dec 2012 10:49:48 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50e1b41cecad04ac73000009
Rather than ignore the Constitution, let's amend it. There is an app for that.
And before you say it's too hard to amend, it's supposed to be hard.
You're supposed to think about it, not just react.